How About Some Incitement to Terrorism?

You allow the Americans, who are the biggest butchers in the world, to stop at Shannon Airport to refuel and go on to kill people in Muslim countries. If you believe the Americans are terrorists, the Irish government is colluding with them and aiding and abetting terrorism,” he said....

“You know it’s not just now that it’s become a legitimate target - I believe for a long time that in the eyes of al-Qaeda and others, [Ireland] is a place which is being used to aid and abet the war. The Irish claim that it is neutral is not something which has been bought by Muslims around the world,” he said.

Now, he didn't actually say, "Go blow up some Irishmen." He just said that Ireland is "a legitimate target."

This no need to quibble here. This...person...condones, in advance, butchery, and he's openly encouraging it. He's a legitimate target--but I'd rather he not die; there's no need to reward him and his fellows with his martyrdom. He's a legitimate target to die of very old age after a life in a prison cell.

Please explain how our commitment to free speech “embraces” incitement to terrorism. While I will admit that a commitment to freedom of speech requires a certain tolerance of speech one might disagree with or find offensive I fail to see how such tolerance equals an embrace of such speech.

That piece of trash can say that he thinks the actions of the Irish government have made it a legitimate target all he wants. A free people will tolerate such things. The second he commands his followers to attack targets in Ireland then all bets are off. Big difference.

Our commitment to free speech doesn't end with him being prosecuted for incitement. I take that as evidence that it embraces these remarks as legitimate speech.

I can imagine an academic saying the same things without it being incitement, though. A professor describing his theoretical understanding of al Qaeda's ideology might well remark that they -- not he, but the subject of his studies -- consider Ireland a legitimate target for these reasons.

But that's not quite what this guy said. It's almost how he phrased it, but the mask drops when he says, "You know, it's not just now that it's become an legitimate target."

His statement that he believes Ireland is a legitimate target, as awful as it is, is no more an incitement to terrorism than the statements of people like Michael Moore claiming that our country’s actions are responsible for terrorist attacks against us. I vehemently disagree with such statements but they are not on the same level as an affirmative command to commit a terrorist act or even that fidelity to God requires such attacks.

I wonder whether the determination of whether or not a statement is an incitement to violence doesn't depend on the context, the speaker's identity, and the likely response?

I can easily see how the very same words could be (or not be) incitement depending on the context. In a calm room or printed in a newspaper, vs. being shouted in the midst of a riot, for instance.

A fatwa is clearly intended as an order. This isn't a fatwa, but given the nature of these twits, it could reasonably (possibly) be construed as encouragement or 'egging on', at the very least. But I agree it's not on the same level as saying it's the duty of all good Muslims to attack the Irish.

The problem is that these folks don't have a reputation for being reasonable or nuanced. So we're left with a hard choice: assume their audience will act according to modern-and-enlightened Western mores, or assume they'll respond like it's 799?

His statement that he believes Ireland is a legitimate target, as awful as it is, is no more an incitement to terrorism than the statements of people like Michael Moore....

This is a false comparison. Moore isn't encouraging anyone to commit mayhem; he's just describing what he considers despicable behavior. This "Muslim preacher" plainly is using his position of authority to excuse a priori mayhem, and he's using both his words from his position of authority and that excusal to encourage exactly that mayhem.

I don't think it is false comparison. Michael Moore and people like him, especially Rev Wright, regularly claimed America’s behavior had lead, would lead, to the “chickens coming home to roost.” This Muslim preacher is saying essentially the same thing. I don’t agree with him. In fact, I find his statements morally reprehensible. Nevertheless, he is not actively encouraging, inciting, anyone to immediately attack any specific person or target. This is an important distinction. In Criminal law incitement means to instigate, persuade, or move another to commit a crime; it is a verb closely associated with abet. It involves the idea of active participation not just theoretical argument.

It seems to me, Joel, that there's a danger that you and I agree but are divided by the language. What I said was that our commitment to free speech seems to embrace incitement, given that these remarks are not controlled. Your claim is that, of course it does not embrace incitement, because incitement is defined in such a way as to exclude these remarks -- meaning that they are not controlled.

Which means that we agree about the fact that our laws embrace what he is saying, which was the main point I was making. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't speak always with lawyerly precision as to the terms of art, but I think we mean the very same thing when I say 'obviously this incitement is in accord with free speech law' as when you say, 'this speech does not meet the legal test for incitement.'

As long as he was stating an opinion that Ireland has no defensible claim to being a "neutral" party in warfare, I call it free speech. Where he crosses the line for me is in describing Ireland as a legitimate target of terrorist attacks. Actually, if he restated it slightly and argued that Ireland was a legitimate target of a declaration of war, I'd go back to calling it free speech.

I guess it goes against my libertarian principles to argue that organized states have a monopoly on the mechanisms of war, but I do draw a distinction between a state declaring war and an individual instigating criminal violence. The way the system works is that you can declare war if you're prepared to be treated like a state and have a state declare war back; then we'll see who wins. But if you're an individual and you "declare war," we'll apply criminal justice codes. Imperfect but functional.

I guess it goes against my libertarian principles to argue that organized states have a monopoly on the mechanisms of war...

Depending on just how libertarian you are, perhaps; but it's not problematic if we say that citizens acting qua citizens can exercise that power. For example, citizens defending themselves from terrorist attacks! Or citizens acting in defense of the common peace and lawful order by using violence to stop crimes in progress, for that matter. And, of course, the militias of the several states, which can be called into Federal service.

Since the People are also sovereign, then, what we end up saying is just that the citizenry is sovereign over the monopoly on warfare. The state may be tasked to lead the effort, but that delegation can be withdrawn and the People resume their sovereignty should the state become tyrannical or nonfunctional (as per the Declaration, or our discussion below).

No, he's not. He's saying Irish have been for some time legitimate target[s]--he's condoning mayhem in advance and using that to encourage the mayhem. Nor Moore nor Wright, as I recall, encouraged mayhem, said some people were legitimate targets for their brethren to kill. There is a vast difference between predicting that chickens will come home to roost and encouraging one's fellows to be those chickens.

This "preacher" also knows that his words, carefully chosen as they were by this intelligent man for whom words are stock in trade, are likely to lead to mayhem by the fanatical among his brethren, just as we know--and so restrict free speech accordingly--that shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater as a prank is likely to lead to a measure of mayhem. Moore and Wright, speaking equally carefully to different audiences, could reasonably believe that no fanatics among their brethren would take their words as permission to get violent.

This person is actively encouraging, inciting the mayhem. That he's not encouraging its immediacy is irrelevant; planning is useful.

It is important to know the history of Imam Choudary. He has skirted very close to arrest in the UK in the past for incitement of racial hatred. Remember the UK is not the US. They do not actually have a constitutional protection for speech (in fact, so called "anti-social" speech can, and will result in a fine or jail time in the UK), but they are ridiculously tolerant nonetheless. He is very careful not to cross the line and break the law. He has spent most of his life getting as close to that line as he can. In other words, he is a professional inciter... much like the Westboro Baptist fools. He WANTS people to react. And not just his followers, but he wants to spur someone to attack him or his community.

In many ways, he is like the modern KKK. He knows that he can preach his special brand of hate as loudly as he wants, so long as he does not make specific threats. This man will not do anything that will put his cushy lifestyle (completely at the expense of the UK taxpayer, no less) at jeopardy.

So in other words, he knows that his ability to incite violence is circumspect, and makes sure to stay barely on the legal side of things. If he was honest in his opinions, I'm certain he'd be arrested in a heartbeat for saying something along the lines of "what happened in France is good, someone should do that to David Cameron". Because I am sure he does believe that. He just is smart enough to know that he cannot be that honest.

Well, remember Raven's point about nonperformance. The day after that terrorist attack in Ireland, he may get a visit from the IRA (or the UVA, depending on what gets hit). When that happens, it's not going to do anything except improve popular opinion of the hitters.

I see what you mean by embrace. Consequently, I think we are in agreement. Mike D. your analysis seems spot on. Whereas he comes close to the line, he hasn't crossed it yet. Eric, you're wrong. In this case there is no difference between this preacher saying the Irish have through their actions made themselves targets for terrorism and Rev. Wright saying America’s actions have made it a target for terrorism. The “Rev.” Wright was practically cheering for that result. As shameful as both of these examples are neither of them represent illegal actions, at least under American law. If you think the enemies of this country haven’t used the statements of useful idiots like Michael Moore and “Rev.” Wright to justify their positions you are fooling yourself.

Well, remember Raven's point about nonperformance. The day after that terrorist attack in Ireland, he may get a visit from the IRA (or the UVA, depending on what gets hit). When that happens, it's not going to do anything except improve popular opinion of the hitters.